The case prosecuted under the court of Appeal of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen v Danny Lalumiere, in 2011, was intended to appeal the conviction of counseling to commit murder. The appellant argued that the life sentence was not appropriate and was outside the range of sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offenses. This is an example of a case where legal guilt was used to provide a conviction. The conviction of the appellant was based on the testimony of a psychiatrist doctor, Dr. Pallandi, who provided a profile of the accused and concluded that the appellant was pathologically predisposed to commit an offense. The appellate court ruled against the Crown’s decision at the trial, stating that the appellant lacked moral culpability for his offenses and therefore the sentence was not deserved.
Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.
The parties decide what evidence to present, what witnesses to call, and how to question them. The judge is to be a neutral during the process and uphold the principles of fairness and equality, although he does make determinations of fact and law. The adversarial system is usually found in places with a common law system. In an inquisitorial hearing, the judge has a more prominent and active role in regards to evidence and questioning the witnesses. The inquisitorial system is typically found in places with a civil law system.
A civil case typically begins when one party files a complaint against the other. 3. A grand jury is a body of people legally empowered to conduct official proceedings that investigate possible criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. The grand jury in Del 's trial acquitted him after he was arrested, which led to his freedom. 4.
While Upton Sinclair was writing what was soon to be a bestseller and a book that is still used in literature classes to this day, he kept in mind that he wanted to portray the exploited lives of workers for the meatpacking industries. He really emphasized that they were substantially underpaid for the harsh working conditions they were put in. What the public emphasized on was how the meat was being treated, this caused an uproar throughout the country. It was never Sinclair’s goal to muck rack and expose what the meatpacking industries were doing. Now to this day Sinclair’s, The Jungle, is known for being a classic muckraking tale.
A jury is not trained to decide someone’s fate, which is why a judge, as a trained lawyer, should choose the
First, at the federal level an American has the guarantee to a trial by jury (almost all states have similar amendments as well). The second part is that the jury is the final arbitrator of your innocence or guilt. This is a critical concept of the amendment. Just like in early England and the colonies, if a judge is the arbitrator, then there is no protection from the government. The judge could jail one for anything.
Then the case may be dismissed or the trial may start all over again (LC). The origins of the jury system are from the 11th-century England. The concept was that people were entitled to a jury of their peers. At the time, a peer meant someone who knew the accused, someone who lived in the neighborhood and knew who was a liar and who
In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 1(Foreman) says, “Anyway this friend of my uncle’s was on a jury once, about ten years ago- a case just like this one..... They let him off. Reasonable doubt. And do y’know, about eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway.” By allowing different people onto the jury, they have the ability to give assumptions and information about other cases which can sway and harm the verdict.
Another reason citizens question juries is that they have bias from personal experience or the media. The defendant and the prosecution criticize the jury system because the actual jurors may not understand the situation from any point of view because they come from different lifestyles (Doc E). The American jury system is not a good idea anymore because juries are not experts in law, they have bias, and are not “a jury of peers”. Because jurors are not experts in law, they are subject to be
The United States Criminal Justice system has a unique way of approaching and handling criminal trials. In criminal trials there are important court room members with specific roles and certain court room procedures that must be followed. The court room members include the jury, the judge, the prosecution, and the defense. Some of the procedures of a criminal trial are arraignment, preliminary hearing, the trial itself, opening statements, direct examination, cross examination, closing arguments and the verdict. Each court room member’s goal is to fulfill their responsibility and to help justice be served.
This may cause the jury to be indecisive between what the actual case and what the media portrays it to be. The amount of media released for cases creates a negative impact within the courts and makes it difficult for a fair trial. When juries are uncertain about a case or a suspect, they result to social media platforms and news coverage that will provide them with more information and depth into the case. ‘’But if the case unfolds in the media, by the time a case gets to court, the supposedly impartial jury (or even the judge) may have already heard information and allegations (not admissible by court standards) that have caused them to seriously prejudice the parties’’. (Nedim, 2014).
Trial jury is smaller in size compared to the grand jury, trial jury usually consists of 6-12 people. Trial jury, which is usually the type of jury we see televised, is usually open to the public, very strict, and controlled by a judge. Defendants usually are allowed to be present, as well as testify, and call witnesses if they choose to do so. A trial usually has no say so regarding the trial they are working on, usually the only thing they are allowed to do, is deliberate and come up with a final decision, also known as the verdict. The trial jury rules either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant.
This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,
